This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The US Recorded Its Warmest March In History And All We Got Was This Timelapse Video
NOAA just released confirmation that the first quarter of 2012 was the warmest on record. The fact that we rely on 'seasonal adjustments' in macro data that are so critical in our seeming belief in the recovery of the US economy (and its extrapolation into how many iPads will be bought next month) when the temperature is 20% hotter than average is simply incredible.
U.S. records warmest March; more than 15,000 warm temperature records broken
First quarter of 2012 also warmest on record; early March tornado outbreak is year's first "billion dollar disaster"
Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895. More than 15,000 warm temperature records were broken during the month.
The average temperature of 51.1°F was 8.6 degrees above the 20th century average for March and 0.5°F warmer than the previous warmest March in 1910. Of the more than 1,400 months (117+ years) that have passed since the U.S. climate record began, only one month, January 2006, has seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012.
Note: The March 2012 Monthly Climate Report for the United States has several pages of supplemental information and data regarding the unprecedented early 2012 temperatures.
U.S. climate highlights — March
- Every state in the nation experienced at least one record warm daily temperature during March. According to preliminary data, there were 15,272 warm temperature records broken (7,755 daytime records, 7,517 nighttime records). Hundreds of locations across the country broke their all-time March records. There were 21 instances of the nighttime temperatures being as warm, or warmer, than the existing record daytime temperature for a given date.
- A persistent weather pattern led to 25 states east of the Rockies having their warmest March on record. An additional 15 states had monthly temperatures ranking among their ten warmest. That same pattern brought cooler-than-average conditions to the West Coast states of Washington, Oregon, and California.
- Temperatures in Alaska during March, which are not included in the contiguous U.S. average value, ranked as the tenth coolest on record.
- The nationally-averaged precipitation total was 2.73 inches, which is 0.33 inches above average. The Pacific Northwest and the Southern Plains were much wetter than average during March while drier-than-average conditions prevailed in the interior West, Northeast, and Florida. Colorado had its driest March on record.
- According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, as of April 3rd, 36.8 percent of the contiguous U.S. was in drought, a decrease from 38.7 percent at the end of February and an increase from 28.8 percent a year ago on April 5, 2011. Above-average precipitation across the Southern Plains improved long-term drought conditions Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
- Warmer-than-average conditions across the eastern U.S. also created an environment favorable for severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. According to NOAA's Storm Prediction Center, there were 223 preliminary tornado reports during March, a month that averages 80 tornadoes annually. The majority of the tornadoes occurred during the March 2nd-3rd outbreak across the Ohio Valley and Southeast, which caused 40 fatalities. Total losses from this event are estimated to exceed $1.5 billion dollars, making this the first event of 2012 to exceed one billion dollars in damages and losses.
- On March 9, a large weather system impacted the Hawaiian Islands, bringing extreme rainfall and severe thunderstorms. A rare EF-0 tornado hit the towns of Lanikai and Kailua on Oahu, causing minor damage. A hailstone with the largest diameter on record for the state, measuring 4¼ inches, fell on Oahu during this event.
Year-to-date (January-March)
- The first three months of 2012 were also record warm for the contiguous United States with an average temperature of 42.0°F, 6.0°F above the long-term average.
- Twenty-five states, all east of the Rockies, had their warmest first quarter on record, and an additional 16 states had first-quarter temperatures ranking among their ten warmest.
- Numerous cities had a record warm January-March, including Chicago, Boston, and Washington, D.C. No state in the contiguous U.S. had below-average January-March temperatures.
- Alaska had its ninth coolest January-March period; temperatures were 5.2°F below average.
- The nationally-averaged precipitation total for January-March was 0.29 inches below the long-term average. States across the Pacific Northwest and Southern Plains were wetter than average, while the Intermountain West, parts of the Ohio Valley, and the entire Eastern Seaboard were drier than average.
- NOAA's U.S. Climate Extremes Index, an index that tracks the highest 10 percent and lowest 10 percent of extremes in temperature, precipitation, drought and tropical cyclones, was 39 percent, nearly twice the long-term average and the highest value on record for the January-March period. The predominant factor was the large area experiencing extremes in warm daily maximum and minimum temperatures.
Cold season (October-March) and 12-month period (April 2011-May 2012)
- The cold season, which is defined as October 2011 through March 2012 and an important period for national heating needs, was second warmest on record for the contiguous U.S. with a nationally-averaged temperature 3.8°F above average. Only the cold season of 1999-2000 was warmer. Twenty-one states across the Midwest and Northeast, areas of the country with high annual heating demands, were record warm for the six-month period.
- The previous 12-month period (April-March), which includes the second hottest summer (June-August) and fourth warmest winter (December-February), was the warmest such period for the contiguous United States. The 12-month running average temperature was 55.4°F, which is 2.6°F above the 20th century average.
»
- 21719 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
it does suck
it's not the political affiliations
it's the lack of any academic
I question my sanity re: posting here quite often - and those who know me question it even more often, ha - but in the end, as someone who likes to sample realities, and opinions, and refine arguments, pass along information, and pick up knowledge along the way - this is an excellent space for that.
and as someone who, for whatever reasons, has spent most of my time around groups of males - not always men, but males, as I do make a distinction - ZH is pretty average, though it has gotten more lowbrow over the past year as it attracts more disenfranchised, angry dude types. and of course, they're the most resistant to "change" and "ideas" that challenge their realities, the realities they MUST defend else they lose their status. . . when in fact, that train left the station a long time ago.
well, look to the "third world" spaces they dream of fleeing to - where everything is "cheap" so they can maintain the illusion of being wealthy, and can afford what they like, where they believe the "hawt women" are attracted to them (mail order bride syndrome), and are not exploiting their wallets (sex trade countries are full of these types of guys, middle-aged but teenage in mentality). . . they don't want to believe the environment is toxic, they want to eat, smoke, drink and f**k and no body tell them what to do!!!!1!!
lol, like I said, they want a reality centered around them, one that serves their needs, and doesn't ask for any contributions, monetary or otherwise. this is the legacy of Anglo-Amrkn colonising, as it has colonised the minds - look at history, and who tells it, who benefited?
and then I come across cool guys here, ones that think, and have some humour about all this - which is hella depressing if one's mind dwells on particulars - and I log in again in the morning - masochist!!
Bill Callahan - America (some have compared him to Leonard Cohen, I see why)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMQ0CeXYd54
take care misters flak & jones!
Hey dumbfuck, proven science should allow these "scientists" to be able to predict climate changes.
They cannot not. In fact thet cannot explain any changes in climate with any degree of accuracy. What these climate "scientists" have are computer models which are based on unclear understanding of how this incredibly complex system work.
These models aren't science. They offer no proof. In fact the data has been adjusted to meet the models projections (fact). When the data and the models to jibe it is the data that is adjusted and you want to believe these lying fucktards?
They are not scientists. They are only propagandists. The IPCC - the INTERGOVERNMENTAL panel - should be enough for you to puke your guts out. We're suppose to beleive that some governmental panel isn't politicized? It's all political you dumb fucking piece of shit. Green = Red.
Hey, I linked two papers from 1975 and 1981 that made pretty good predictions...
If you were *really* interested you could find the links I provided if you were really a skeptic....but we know the answer to that...
and once again americans demonstrate how poor we understand the earth sciences. Climate change predicts more mositure events, such as huge snow storms, rainfall etc. More moisture is being put and trapped in the atmosphere. Why do people go out of their way to embarass themselves. If you dont understand the subject, why comment?
Yeah. You'd think that the declining North Atlantic Haline Circulatory System (Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Drift, etc.) hasn't even been factored in to changing the pattern of the Jet Stream.
Good thing the EPA sinking oil below the surface with Corexit didn't change the viscosity of the Gulf circulation, that might have led to much cooler temperatures in Europe with a cooler North Atlantic temperature, or something....
I posted a 1 hour and 20 minute documentary. You should learn something by watching it.
You don't learn science on Youtube.....
I like these predictions 35 and 30 years ago...
1975 http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-broecker.html
1981 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection
Compared to these more recent denier "predictions"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-don-easterbrook.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/mclean-exaggerating-natural-cycles.html
Translated: You can't be arsed to actually argue your case, and thus revert to linkdropping, hoping that'll do the trick.
Seen it thoustands of times before.
I argued my case in my first comment on this thread you freshly squeezed turd.
you did?, all I see is some ignorant ramblings by someone who evidently has never studied in this field. But go ahead, keep embarrassing yourself.
"I argued my case in my first comment on this thread"
You, you did not argue. You claimed.
However, allow me to debunk you.
"In fact, carbon levels LAG global temperature by about 600 years. The higher temperatures actually causes carbon levels to rise."
This argument is thoroughly bunk, as it assumes the mechanism for warming is tghe same, despite the fact that there is now a 5+ billion strong human, industrial civilization sprawling over the planet, extracting and using fossil energy that was accumulated over tens of millions of years, in the timespan of a century.
Does it really need pointing out that increasing the atmospheres content of greenhouse gases thus (or more specifically, by 33% and counting) is a different mode of warming than observed in geologic time?
" you freshly squeezed turd."
Have you had your 14th birthday yet?
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_fires
You don't argue your case by presenting a viewpoint you agree with. That is what schoolchildren and religious zealots do to convince themselves they are right. When adults do it, it is sad.
Quoting Death and Bad teeth,
'Translated: You can't be arsed to actually argue your case',
I knew it!! Only a Brit could fuck something as ugly as Kari. I bet her teeth remind you of your mother....
You fucktard. Don't you realize yet that if the politicians and special interests can vilify something they can tax it? Do you know recently they tried to vilify the dust that farmers made and tried to tax them for it? They tried to tax farmers for making dust because they tried arguing the dust was bad for the enviroment.
If AL Gore gives a shit I'd like to see him trade in his private jets for sail boats, and his SUVs for bicycles. His carbon foot print his HUUUUGGGEE. Al Gore is set to make BILLIONS from this global climate change bull shit because little naive twats like you get their strings diddled by jerk offs like Al Gore and you fall right into their hands.
"Don't you realize yet that if the politicians and special interests can vilify something they can tax it?"
Dont YOU realize that despite politics is heavily corrupt (esp in the USofA), this doesn't mean that every thing that the politicos talk about is necessarily false or entirely made up?
HA. HA. HA
Uhhh... Yes it does!
Quoting the Death and Fraudster:
"Dont YOU realize that despite politics is heavily corrupt (esp in the USofA), this doesn't mean that every thing that the politicos talk about is necessarily false or entirely made up"
Hey death and stupidity, that was the funniest thing I read today. Gee, the politicians would never make up a phony threat or problem, SO THEY COULD TAX US, would they? They would never make up CAGW and then send clowns like yourself to defend the fraud, al a Cass Sunstein, would they??
I understand, you are talking your book. For someone like you, sucking off the public tit, it is ok to lie and make up problems to feed yourself. Guess what, I also like to eat and I want to be left alone, instead of having fraudsters like yourself trying to steal my money to support your parasitism.
You guys have a major problem in abstaining from the insults, don't you?
All insult, no argument. It speaks loads.
Well, the only load you will geton ZH for free is Al Gores dick in your mouth. Instead of posting your BS, do something useful like crying over a dead tree, save a gay whale, or fuck Kari again.
you sure have an obsession with dicks and ugly chicks- you weren't getting laid in high school, you were getting beat up I'll bet- classic projection of an abused individual.
Yep, I know what it like to look like Kari. And as I project, so does she. Except I don't want to re-educate those who do not agree with me,.
Yea, it really does.....sad fact
Ha ha ha. Retarded statemnt of the year. Get any average citizen to agree with that statement.
Yup def right. Gore sold his soul out decades ago sunshine.
Anyone who believes that 'scientists' are impartial really doesn't understand how the Academic racket works.
Try getting a Ph.D if you disagree with your thesis advisor. Good luck getting published in a major journal if you disagree with the dogma-de-jure. Or getting grant money.
Science, and particularly big science, is an approval cult - one gets their Ph.D and advances their career by brown-nosing those who have gained positions in power within the Academic infrastructure (where the tenure system *guarantees* the accumulation of power).
Unfortunately, man made global warming makes a great platform from which to advance both the near term 'carbon-credits' ponzi scheme, and longer term a justification for lowering the human population (Ted Turner seems to like 500M, or at least that seems to be the number he approved for his Georgia Guidestones).
Believing that TPTB would not use *ANY* tool or platform to advance their agenda, and go to whatever lengths necessary to justify and confirm the means they use, has not read any Edward Bernays (or Goebbels, one of his biggest fans)...
A classic example of how Science has become corrupt is how Hannes Alfven (RIP) and those with similar ideas are treated regarding the solar system (viz. the "Electric Universe").
Speaking from experience re: getting a Ph.D. and getting published?? Somehow I do not think so...
What gets published is good work, there is no agenda, and if you make extraordinary claims, you had better have extraordinary data...
In fact when you referee a paper, you do not even know the names of the authors....
Go ahead and argue about how to address AGW, but don't make a fool of yourself by saying it doesn't exist....
99.8% of what gets published is useless, mind-numbing crap that no one will ever read and only advances the career of the one who publishes it.
If you don't publish, you don't get tenure and you "die" Academically speaking.
The pressure is on quantity, not quality, and it shows - "scientists" have turned into professional paper-writers, finding niche positions in a particular field that can be mined for papers - a well picked niche will be their gold mine.
The Academic Establishment is horribly corrupt, politically, ethically and morally - big money, and sociopaths seeking more power and prestige over others is the culprit.
I agree, there is a lot of marginal research out there.... but you are barking up the wrong tree...And if no one reads it, you do not advance... Your citations are a very important aspect of gaining tenure...
One excellent paper trumps 200 poor ones....
... and 2012 is the end of a 26,000 year cycle for the sun, causing stuff like this to happen:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
Where do you get 26,000 years???? This is the quote (in reference to the 11 year cycle)
And while the storm was impressive, the amount of energy was tiny (enough to power NYC two years), here is some context from a footnote
Just being pendantic, but it's nuclear fusion that powers the sun.
nuclear fission involves uranium/plutonium typically. the sun runs on nuclear fusion, hydrogen converting to helium.
on a related temperature note, much has been made of the possibility that the seasonal adjustments to the payroll data are inaccurate this year because of the unseasonable winter warmth (get used to it?).
while this is likely true, john hussman extracts an even more (to me) interesting point from david rosenberg regarding recent growth in jobs being due entirely to the over 55 cohort and being a sign of desperation rather than recovery. check it out: http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc120409.htm
Science is not selective, only people with an agenda pick and choose what they relate in a tale to make it look like they are correct. If you choose to leave out the actions that humans take to separate atoms that leave waste to spread throught the environment, then you will die happy. Ignorant as hell, but happy you were right in your own mind. Science is a bitch for people that don't understand it. Ignorance is worse.
When will these libs just give it up already! Hey libs think for yourselves for once! Right fella's?! Thumbs up me!
Sigh....fusion, not fission. But by all means, continue to believe that you are sufficiently expert to reject scientific consensus. You clearly have the chops.
Actually, the term changed because most people seem unable or unwilling to understand marco trends that they do not see with their own eyes. The overall trend according to thousands of scientists is a warming planet as a whole. But individual areas and even the entire globe may experience wild swings on a year-by-year basis, including colder than normal weather and/or more storms, or fewer storms, or less rain/more rain, etc. In order to try to make people stop focusing on the temperature in one city on any given day or even in one given year and realize that the weather is changing, they've started talking about "climate change." The fact that we are breaking heat records this year in one country does not make it a trend. But it is consistent with the science that we will have more years like this in the future.
The term was actually changed because they were caught lying, suppressing emails ,and falsifying information.
The Hadley'leak' is old,very thoroughly debunked canard by now.
It still gets a lot of upticks though, if you're into that kind of thing.
Being swept under the rug doesn't mean the dirt never exsisted. The emails are still out there to be read.
and still fair game to be wholly, wilfully, and woefully misapprehended or otherwise deliberately misconstrued, apparently.
debunked is debunked is debunked
But saying something is debunked over and over doesn't make it so.
no, the fact that it actually has been debunked does.
Words are not proof. Lie all you want, it was Climategate that helped put paid to your phony CAGE religion.
Yes; and those of us who have both actually read them, as well as having at least some understanding of the topics touched on have a quite clearer understanding that they are indeed not damning at all, unlike the ever-regurgitated denialist mythology-cum-snippets would have it.
The dirt is only though of as such, because a few professional denialists (and lest not forget, their faithful denialist crowd) have a gargantual emotional investment in having it be the smoking gun of the massive "AGW conspiracy".
When you also point out that several public comissions and inquiries found at worst, little fault with the work and behavior of the Hadley researchers, the denialist response is unsurprisingly that they are in on it. But a good conspiracy theory would of course not be that easily disproved, would it? :)
I would suggest that the climate change crowd have a larger emotional and monetary investment to lose than the realists. We see you guys as religious fanatics when it comes to climate change and You can't argue religion with a zealot. Here you have a clear indication in the emails that information was suppressed, altered, even lied about, yet you choose to blame it on the skeptics.
"Here you have a clear indication in the emails that information was suppressed, altered, even lied about, yet you choose to blame it on the skeptics"
Again, you continually CLAIM so, but make no reference, and more importantly, you give no indication that you have any understanding to quality your opinion.
As for being seen as a religious fanatic... so what. The typical Christian fundamentalist also sees a self-declared atheist as a religious fundamentalist, though I wouldn't think that that was the atheists' fault, either.
Quoting Death and Dumness:
"Yes; and those of us who have both actually read them, as well as having at least some understanding of the topics touched on have a quite clearer understanding that they are indeed not damning at all, unlike the ever-regurgitated denialist mythology-cum-snippets would have it.
The dirt is only though of as such, because a few professional denialists (and lest not forget, their faithful denialist crowd) have a gargantual emotional investment in having it be the smoking gun of the massive "AGW conspiracy"."
You are free to believe what you want. My name is not (UGH) Kari Norgaard.
But why should I pay for your religious beliefs? Why should I work for so people like you can write BS on ZH? Why don't you just leave us alone and find real work?
Keep lying, it further debunks your AGW religion. Thank you.
Yep, and every solution involves adding on another layer of control.
Starting to see a pattern here?
War on Poverty
War on Drugs
War on Terra
War on Man.
pods
The fact that people will try to profit from it/use it to tighten the noose does not render it untrue. Our job as citizens is to kick the fuckers out that would seek to exploit the issue, rather than to pretend there is no danger despite overwhelming scientific evidence of it.
If you are equating computer models with scientific evidence you are talking to the wrong guy.
pods
The same computer models that are sucessfully used in a wide swath of other scientific and engineering disciplines?
Footbullet.
Induction has its limitations...
fair enough.
Tell you what: I bet the sun will 'rise' tomorrow, wanna take the other side of that wager? I'll even give you some decent odds...
I'll take the bet. I say the sun neither rises or sets, and such a description is nonsense. The earth rotates and faces the sun for a relatively constant amount of time based upon seasonal variants. The moon though, stays constant and presents the same side all the time toward earth. But it too refuses to rise and set.
What odds are you giving?
10 to 1 that your obtuse comment missed the point of mine by such a wide margin that it makes my eyes roll....Now pay up.
Your comment had a point?
yes, a very plain one regarding inductive arguments. Too bad you (all) missed it; my condolences.
"The same computer models that are sucessfully used in a wide swath of other scientific and engineering disciplines?"
That same computer modeling that is used to design electronic circuitry, test mechanical engineering designs, yes, the same kind. The same computer modeling that works wonderfully when all the variables and constants are known. When they aren't known, it just doesn't work very well.
Like, in predicting the weather. The modeling will predict about 5 days out. After that, it's a crap shoot. But somehow, even though the models can't predict the weather two weeks out, we are spose to believe that models can predict weather for the next 50 years? HAHAHAHA
This whole AGW thing started in 1990. We now have 22 years of records to evaluate the accuracy of those predictions.
They had to change the name cause it's a joke. How many years before the pseudo science idiots start figure it out? It aint happening. I believed it too, but it aint happening.
It's just like the conservatives being duped around their religious beliefs. The left is being duped around this AGW BS. Figure it out man!!!
"That same computer modeling that is used to design electronic circuitry, test mechanical engineering designs, yes, the same kind. The same computer modeling that works wonderfully when all the variables and constants are known. When they aren't known, it just doesn't work very well."
Only, unfortunately to the denialists and whoever would appeal to ignorance rather than face the facts, the significant factors involved are by and large, well known.
"This whole AGW thing started in 1990. We now have 22 years of records to evaluate the accuracy of those predictions."
Patently false as there are over a century of metereological records to build on, not counting the proxy data, which is constantly improving.
"It's just like the conservatives being duped around their religious beliefs. The left is being duped around this AGW BS. Figure it out man!!!"
YOU figure it out that one does not have to be a leftist to conform to scientific rigor and fact.
22 whole years!! Well then I'm convinced. Did you hear that people. Twenty-Two YEARS!!! And we've had satellites for like 60 whole years. That makes us more smarter.
Hey, you will like this one!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-broecker.html
And since, apparently, you do not like to read:
A nice little video about what we knew in 1982
http://www.skepticalscience.com/what-we-knew-in-82.html
True, but that itself is no positive argument for taking a negative stance on a speicific and well-researched, massively discussed topic.
Your lumping climate "science" in with scientific and engineering disciplines is the problem.
The fact that those other disciplines are providing you coattails to ride upon is because that they can properly take into account ALL the variables when designing something.
If they had to take into account 15-20 inter-related, immeasurable and unpredictable variables, they would be taking up space at your conventions instead of making the world a (possibly) better place.
pods
"The fact that those other disciplines are providing you coattails to ride upon is because that they can properly take into account ALL the variables when designing something."
Nonsense. Your problem with this topic is that you think that ALL variables MUST be included, and included to arbitrarily high precision and perfection for a model to be true. Suffice to say, that is not how scientific and engineering disciplies work today. This is NOT the absolutely-true-or-absolutely-false world of yore. It's not about absolute validity today, as much as it is about having a model that is able to predict 'well enough' for a certain purpose.
Besides, the most significant variables are in fact known and included in the models, which are likewise constantly improving as more work is done on refining them, as well as gathering more data. The way science works.
As for making the world a better place, we can start with cease trying to belittle a scientific discipline, which is really just trying to show that a century of human industrial activity does have a noticable and potentially highly disruptive effect on the global climate. As long as that is being denied and ridiculed by the denialist crowd, there is less efford being put towards preparing for the changes that will inevitably come.
And not being prepared for a series of disasters down the road certainly will not make the world better.
So you are starting at the conclusion and working backwards?
Nice.
Pretty sure that leaving out a variable in engineering leads quickly to cars catching fire from fender benders and rockets exploding on launchpads.
"This is NOT the absolutely-true-or-absolutely-false world of yore."
Did you hear that? That was the sound of your credibility vanishing.
Merely look out your window.Then compare with yesterdays weather forecast
where all the major variables were factored in.
What else do you need to know about this "science".
Bullshit. If climate change was in any way dealt with in the same way as, say, soil mechanics or structural design, we would all be driving bicycles and taking ships across the Atlantic, and global shipping would be a thing of the past unless absolutely necessary. Ask an engineer how many factors of safety on top of factors of safety they apply to each load equation. They are the epitomy of the 'precautionary principle'.
I invite you to nominate a single open-system computer model that is empirically proven to work.
I invite you to stay away from red herrings to make a point.
Hey I got an idea let's use math....
I believe the accepted amount of total CO2 in the atmosphere is in the ballpark range of 600ppm (parts per million) Man made CO2 is 379ppm (I'm not sure how they know that, but for this I'll use that number)
600ppm would be 600/1,000,000 or 60/100,000 or 6/10,000 let's use the 6 out of 10,000 number here so as to try and get our heads around the numbers easily. What I want to know, and have never heard a good answer is, how do 6 molecules of CO2 transfer enough heat to warm the other 9994 molecules ? I have yet to get an answer that makes sense.
Maybe you should learn something about long IR absorption and emission....
Your argument is along the lines of how 50 milligrams hydrocyanic acid could possibly kill a 100 kg man?..
If you are really interested read this
http://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html
No, cyanide's killing mechanism is well known.
CO2's IR peak looks like this: http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/co2_ir.gif
Water's IR peak looks like this: http://senseair.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/IRspectrum_water.gif
CO2 is 600ppm in the atmosphere.
Water is (on average) 1%, or 100,000ppm
Water varies from zero to 5% of the content of the air.
You seriously trying to tell me that CO2 causes a significant amount of warming?
Yep...good thing that water vapor is a GHG or the Earth would be an iceball...
But Cliffie, I really recommend you look at the very first IR spectrum measured by satellite back in 1969...
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1970/JC075i030p05831.shtml
The figure in question can be found as the last one here:
http://skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html
While you are there, you might want to brush up on GHG basics....
Edit: Actually, Cliffie, we know that C02 does not cause warming by itself, it is the absorption of long IR by C02 that the Earth radiates in response to being heated by the sun... And its funny, there are very good predictions such as a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere, larger temperature effects at night, these have been verified...
You know, its just like science predicting stuff and experiments and measurements verifying/falsifying....
The ratio is one based on mass and volume (ppm=mg/L). So you would have to divide by the molecular wt then multiply by avogadros to achieve the actual numbers of molecules. Then do the same based with the other components to figure out the ratio based on molecules.
Kind of anal I know, and does not change your point, but with the amount of sniping going on you will get shot for it.
Quoting Death and brainlessness
"The same computer models that are sucessfully used in a wide swath of other scientific and engineering disciplines?"
Sure they are successful... you fucktards can't even tell us with a 30% probability what the weather will be like in 7 days, much less in 100 years.
As I suspected, you do not know the difference between weather and climate....
Yeah, I know the difference. When events support your religion, you call it Climate. When the your religion is wrong, you call it weather.
Google Frank Luntz..... it was all calculated and researched..
LetThemEatRand
"But it is consistent with the science that we will have more years like this in the future."
Are they psychic or do they merely possess time travel devices?
Because it would be an assumption of potentially warmer years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Glob...
Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict
Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/35-media-releases/129-global-warmin...
As Richard Wood of the Hadley says in the report "climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain." If it is difficult to predict climate 10 years ahead, we can only assume that the prediction that man-made global warming will reappear beyond 2015 is also very uncertain.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/04/no-global-warming-for-15-years-david...
NEW UK Met Office global temperature data confirms that the world has not warmed in the past 15 years.
Analysis by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) of the newly released HadCRUT4 global temperature database shows that there has been no global warming in the past 15 years – a timescale that challenges current models of global warming.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717153183842136...
No Need to Panic About Global WarmingPerhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
Maybe you could explain this to me
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
A quote from a commentator...
If you choose to follow those you believe in, your science education matches a religious one. Believing in fantasy and trying to make it real. You cite sources that are paid to say what you want to hear. When you absorb the evidence from the thousands of studies in macro and micro climate, you learn a great deal that would challenge your belief system. Please stop pretending to make yourself feel better. Reality can be more pleasant than fantasy.
I read there are over 1,000,000 books written that prove the existence of GOD. I guess that makes it true.
Complete horsesh-t. The "term" changed when some influential zealot realized that "warming" could be disproven but "change" was assured.
No, the reason for the change in description is a pragmatic one, to (try to) avoid that you have oodles of denialists (as also illustrated in this very thread) that REFUSE to understand that the warming in question refers to a GLOBAL AVERAGE and not to an CERTAIN FUTURE AND OMNIPRESENT warming at all times and places of the earth.
Of course, you can drag a horse to water...
Rebranding the description didn't work very well, did it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/07/public-support-climate-change-declines
Keep up the good work. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
Actaully, Climate Change was a "researched and vetted" alternative to Global Warming paid for by the Republicans. It was a deemed a a better term because it was not so scary....
Appointees to NOAA during the Bush administration were instructed to used CC instead of GW....
Google up Republican pollster Frank Luntz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
and before that it was acid rain and before that is was global cooling and before that it was other doomsayers predicting some other catastro[phic end of the world scenario and then 10000 years ago a sheet of ice 1 mile thick covered the entire state of Washington and lots of the US.No doubt the climate is a changing and thank goodness.
Do you have some written contributions to make to Conservapedia...
You would not know what science looks like if it fucked you up the ass....
Why the anger? Not a very scientific attitude.
What I listed are facts not speculation or conjecture. I do not even dispute that where scientists have measured the temperature (often urban or near urban areas with lots of heat reflecting off pavement ) that the temperature could be getting warmer.
I say so what? Any answer you give is speculation. You do not know the outcome. The system is way too complex to predict outcomes. That is exactly what warmists want to do (if this then that) Well you do not know the THAT part of the equation and no amount of science will tell you what it is.
Would add again that when dealing in the scientific realm you should check the anger at the door.
Fuck you... Don't play that passive agressive shit with me...You have already demonstrated your colors and you will eschew any attempt at a rational discussion....
Why don't you comment on the predictions I linked from 30 and 35 years ago?
Sorry, the system (at least this one) is not too complex to predict outcomes and I just provided the proof in this thread....
Correlation is not causation. Predicting the earth is in warming trend is pretty easy consdiering like I said that a SHEET OF ICE 1 MILE THICK covered the entire state of Washington a mere 10,000 years ago. No doubt it is getting warmer.
The question is and where the speculation gets much more difficult and nearly impossible is to determine the effects on human life. There may be some bad outcomes but there can equally be good outcomes. You will never be able to use science to tell me wether the good outweighs the bad or vice versa.
BTW Did you know that Bernanke predicted inflation would be at 2% and guess what? Its coming right in line with that. Truly amazing science he is pulling off.
Again anger is no path to reason. It clouds your judgement, work on that and you will open whole new worlds for yourself.
I agree with rip here.
However, there are ominous signs from the various branches of the studies of the hydrosphere and biosphere of what a wide warmning will have of effects. They're quite well covered in the publically available literature, even the asessment reports from the IPCC.
Some of the notable effects are coral bleaching, which will have severe consequences on the food chain, and thus, aquatic biomass production (affects fishing), as well as the agricultural output in the tropics, where every 1 degree centigrade warming over an average of 30, is estimated to reduce the crop output by 10%.
This alone has the potential to crush the poorer, more agricultural-bound enconomies on the Equator, with significant geopolitical consequences.
You'd think more CO2 and longer growing seasons where the majority of food is produced would cause higher yields.
To a point, this is correct.
However, the point where no amount of extra CO2 will improve grain output is when the average daily temperature exceeds 30 C; after this, the crops will suffer more from the heat than it will benefit from other environmental factors.
As for the yields, they are massively increasing in Europe.... ;)
I dunno if you can just say that with such confidence as if it is a fact. A lot of modeling went into that conclusion.
Tarsubil,
You would think that if you ignore numerous other cycles which are required to turn. See nitrogen cycle, phosphorus cycle, and the sulfur cycle. PLants and algae have the carbon cycle covered, but many of these other cycles have specific reactions that are catalyzed by a very few and very select set of microorganisms. Interrupt any single step and things change dramatically with respect to the types of life that can be supported. But don't worry, it would take hundreds, maybe thousands of years. of course, by the time the average sheeple "sees" a problem, it will be far too late. It is what it is, be happy and productive.
"catalyzed by a very few and very select set of microorganisms"
That doesn't sound like any microorganism I've ever heard about before.
Haven't you realized that there is a whole bunch of stuff that you know nothing about...
I think you missed the point.
I believe 3M was developing a film that would be applied to car windows in order to tint them. The chemists could not for the life of them figure out why the film was bubbling in sunlight. A microbiologist suggested disinfecting the window before it was applied. The chemists thought he was insane, the temperature of the windows got above 100 C. He said, yeah, disinfect them. They did and the bubbles stopped and the whole section was saved from failure. There were bacteria on test windows that enjoyed growing at extreme temperatures. I'm sure some would think that such weird things were few and select but they end up being ubiquitous.
Politician? Your ability to confuse is excellent. I don't think it works on others though. They would have to be you. Do you understand yet?
I'll always remember the climate scientologist lining his model's predictions up with observation data. You cannot beat that for predictability.
To Flak never quitting to fight for his ego! Cheers!
nothing, a few trillion$s of carbon credits can't fix
Quoting Flakmeister:
Fuck you... Don't play that passive agressive shit with me...You have already demonstrated your colors and you will eschew any attempt at a rational discussion....
Gee, Flak, are you projecting your crap onto someone else?? How does one argue rationally with a CAGW religious kook like yourself?
As for the system is not too complex and your provided the proof, hmmm, move over GOD, here come the Flakmeister...
No wonder your ex's hate you.
Psychopath. (Flakmeister that is). Like - scary person.
Scientists aren't particularly amused by people that claim to be scientists. Scientists are not amused by ignorance, where many jobs demand it. Speculation is a first step to a theory. It is the scientists that then try to prove their theory. It is the ignorant that try to disprove what they don't like, regardless of the existence of scientific data confirmed by the scientific method.
Belief is not involved after the speculation phase.
Scientists actually try to disprove their theory. Warmists on the other hand try an prove their theory.
And ideologues only see what they want...
BTW, you have it backwards in so many ways...
LOL. Oh my, ever try looking in the mirror?
Do you get the hang of that temperature thingie yet?
Hey Flak! Why is ocean data you linked to in joules and not degrees celsius?
Do you practice at being thick or is it natural?
It's just a simple question.
You measure energy using joules...
But anyone who claims AGW is wrong based on their understanding of the science as opposed to ideology would never ask such a question....
Why not use joules when referring to the energy in Earth's atmosphere?
You are really funny... you should consider giving up your day job...
You are not rational. A rational person would answer simple questions to the best of their ability, or say "I don't know".
It's ok to not know, you know. But a lot of people right now want to claim that they know, and want to take a lot of people's money, or even their lives because of these things that they think they know. This has happened before, and it will happen again. Previous examples of this were generally religious ones.
Are, you talking to Tarsubil???
He is the one that does not get the difference but claims to just *know* that GW is a hoax...
Quoting the pompous asshole calling itself Flakmeister:
"Do you practice at being thick or is it natural?"
Whats the problem, Flak, jealous because you have a pencil dick that only a Kari could love???
Most theory in the scientific world of today isn't the simple true-or-false assertions of mathematics, but rather complex and statistic sets of observations and many branches of theory and discipline that is not possible to falsify in one stroke.
Hence, the popperial logic is not easily applicable here as a tool to distrust AGW theory.
By definition climate "scientists" do NOT use the scientific method.
"Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner"
By definition climate "scientists" do NOT use the scientific method.
Please try to understand that lab work and modelling today has moved beyond simple Popperian logic.
Awesome! Link that with your comment above and I see why it is so easy.
Start with the conclusion and work backwards, adjusting the models as needed!
Pretty sweet gig if you can get in on it. Take crummy observational data, take crummy modeling predictions. Adjust accordingly. We have a match! New exclusive institute building here we come!
Quoting Death and Kari,
"Please try to understand that lab work and modelling today has moved beyond simple Popperian logic."
Yeah, it is called post normal science, where a result means whatever we want it to mean, as long as Al Gore approves.
No it hasn't, and as a scientist I am quite insulted at the insinuation that it has.
You have placed Aristotle on a pedestal above Einstein. Not a smart move.
Cliffie, a Bachelors or Masters degree makes you a technician, not a scientist, and we sure as fuck know that you do not have a Ph.D.... or any postdoctoral experience....
And you do, of course..... Like any good academic pet, you live for your honors.
But I will grant you a PHD,. You are the best when it comes to Putting your Head up your Derriere <g>
Aside from crackpot consipracy theories, do you have anything to add?
It is clear that a discussion of the science and data is beyond your abilities and comprehension...
Yes. I was going to reply to you upthread, but this is the crux of the problem with the scientific argument: this has never happened before, so there is no empirical base upon which to determine the confidence in the projections, either way.
As such, I don't think that science is going to be especially useful for decision-making, although evidence of melting glaciers and increased releases of methane hydrates are pretty hard to discount. People have different views as to why this is happening, but as this article suggests, it is hard to argue that temperatures aren't going up, on average.
Be that as it may, the real question regarding global warming is: what do we decide to do in the absence of hard scientific evidence, evidence we will probably never see? Do we just continue to do what we have been doing, sustained by the belief that humans cannot or are not affecting the global climate, or do we acknowledge that humans may be responsible and change our actions accordingly? The decision is made easier when it is considered that the costs associated with type II error (false negative: humans don't cause GW) are far higher than those associated with type I error (false positive: humans cause GW). While I understand some of the skepticism of climate science, it's this failure to recognize the costs of a type II error that I don't understand.
There are no consequences of global government CO2 regulations and enforcement?
I'm not advocating global government CO2 regulations and enforcement. My question was aimed more towards individuals and businesses, those who actually make these kinds of investment decisions. I can't control what the government does, but I can continue efforts to reduce my energy consumption and work on attaining energy independence. I think this makes good economic sense in addition to any beneficial climate effects.
Germany is already seeing a shift in their energy usage throughout the course of a day from increased solar, and according to this article, the energy generators are a bit concerned about this development:
"The first graph illustrates what a typical day on the electricity market in Germany looked like in March four years ago; the second illustrates what is happening now, with 25GW of solar PV installed across the country. Essentially, it means that solar PV is not just licking the cream off the profits of the fossil fuel generators – as happens in Australia with a more modest rollout of PV – it is in fact eating their entire cake."
It is great you are reducing your energy usage. Businesses have been doing this since the inception of business. Energy is an operating cost. One way businesses make profits is by reducing operating costs. It really is not a new concept. For individuals energy is also a cost sometimes that cost is subsidized by the government or when individuals and businesses want to reduce energy consumption the government thinks its a good idea to stimulate energy usage. In addition the government is the biggest user of energy so not only would it be good for businesses and individuals to decrease energy usage it would be even better if the biggest consumer and subsidizer of energy participated as well.
Germans are not the only ones making progress. I promise you millions of Americans are doing it as well.
Thank you for the reasoned reply. It is truly refreshing.
" in the absence of hard scientific evidence, evidence we will probably never see? Do we just continue to do what we have been doing, sustained by the belief that humans cannot or are not affecting the global climate, or do we acknowledge that humans may be responsible and change our actions accordingly? "
Millions and probably billions are changing their actions (fuel use is at decade lows, billions are being invested in alternative energies, millions are more conscious of things like where there food is grown, how much energy goes into their food production, how many miles they drive, how much the recycle,)
The problem and angst on this message board is when the suggested change are mandates at the barrel of the governments gun. That is what I am against.h
Thank you. It is the use of force to compel outcomes that repulses anyone that values the freedom of Individuals.
Well, I think many people here are, by disposition, anti-authoritarians, and I include myself in that category. At the same time, I have to wonder if we are all reading different information. When was the last international CO2 treaty with any binding resolutions passed? Did I miss that?
If regulations related to the Fukushima radiation are going to be flatly ignored and data supressed, then I don't see why anyone should be overly concerned about regulation of anything.
You do not wait for the treaty to be signed to voice your opposition. And of course it is not just about international regulations.
This is not just about regulations in fact it is more about money and extortion. The regulations are like sending the person you extort to jail. They are only a threat. Take the threat away and it is harder to extort.
Well that puts the notion of this whole thing where it should actually be. Control over people. My largest concern is that this latest power grab is being done at the expense of what I make my living doing (science).
Well, my second largest. My greatest concern is that someone else has the gall to try to tell me that they know a better way for me to live my life, and they intend to force that on me.
pods
Hilarious...
You are basically I don't like science when it tells me something I do not want to hear....
In case you did not notice, nobody is telling you what to do...
I don't suppose you reserve the same scorn for Apple and the entire advertising complex... after all, they *are* the ones telling you how to live....
Besides you? Or do you forget your alter ego telling me to relearn Stephan-Boltzmann?
pods
Re: Stefan-Boltzmann, I am not the one with problems grasping the concept of temperature...
Re: you being a hypocritical ass.
Nothing?
Actually, anger is pretty normal when one is defending his favorite hypothesis. It used to be that all the best educated experts knew that bacteria did not cause fruit rot. Then some guy questioned that dogma and got personally villified and mocked. He's got several species of bacteria (who even knows what that is anymore?) named after him. Science is performed by humans so it is a very very messy business behind all the beautiful figures of neat tables and graphs.
Leave the profanity to the denialists, please.
denialists = realists.
There I fixed it for you.